Ecosystem Services and Resilience Working Group of the WLE
December, 2012
In the context of poverty alleviation, ecosystem services research and management is about natural capital supporting the lives of the poor. The ecosystem service and resilience framework offers a holistic and long-term view of natural resource management that recognizes landscape multi-functionality and of the contribution that both natural and human-dominated landscapes make to ensuring and improving human well-being. The CGIAR Program on Water Land and Ecosystems (WLE) recognizes the critical need to demonstrate how, under what conditions, and at what scale ecosystem service management contributes to improving the lives of the poor –either by increasing the degree services provided directly to the poor, ensuring the resilience of service provision, or by recognizing the efforts of the poor in providing common pool ecosystems services.
Ecosystem services go beyond solely impacting the poor however, and are central to a global strategy for sustainability. Globally, agricultural systems are met with the dual challenge of increasing food production to meet a growing global population, and to reduce the negative impact of agricultural systems on the environment. The second goal highlights the tremendous impact that agriculture has had as a driver of environmental degradation. WLE recognizes that the agriculture of the 21st century must move beyond a singular emphasis on yield to also focus on the capacity of agricultural landscapes to provide multiple ecosystem services, including food production and hydrological services. In degraded landscapes, this includes restoration of this capacity. This is the “vibrant ecosystems” work of WLE.
The management of ecosystem services necessitates an integrated research focus that transcends scales – from field to landscapes – and disciplines. It requires a clear understanding of the drivers of ecosystem service provision, including the ecological (which ecosystems provide what services, at what scales, and through what processes) and the socio-economic (which services are people interested in and why) in order to create sustainable incentive mechanisms to ensure the continued provision of these services. For the common-pool resources that are the focus on WLE work, it also necessitates research on governance and benefit sharing mechanisms often considered in the realm of political and economic sciences.
As such, primary objective of the Ecosystem Service and Resilience Advisory Group is to set the agenda for major research questions in ecosystem service and resilience research for WLE and to identify expected outcomes that are relevant to the CGIAR SLO’s.
Advisory Group Objectives:
The advisory group aims to provide critical feedback and guide research on ecosystem services in the Water Land and Ecosystems CRP. The goals of the Advisory Group are to:
1) Develop a framework for ecosystem service research within WLE that serves to guide collaborative research projects within the CRP.
2) Provide a synthesis of current and on-going work and key collaborators working on the measurement and monitoring of ecosystem services at landscape and basins scales both within the CGIAR and out. For example this would include on-going work with InVest by the Natural Capital Project, ARIES with Conservation International, the Africa Monitoring System or the World Bank effort to develop national indicators of Natural Capital. We are actively participating in the GEO BON initiatives to develop Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) for monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem services under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
3) Develop a set of metrics and standardized protocols for measuring priority ecosystem services at landscape, national, and basin scales with a particular focus on metrics that bridge the gap between disciplines – ecological, sociological, political and economic.
4) Set the agenda for major research questions on ecosystem services and resilience for WLE and expected outcomes; secure additional CGIAR and Restricted funding to support Ecosystem Service based research in WLE.
Beginnings of a Framework
Ecosystems are the conditions and processes through which natural and managed ecosystems and the species that comprise them sustain and support human life. This includes goods as well as functions (adapted from Daily 1996). Work on ecosystem services as a means of conserving biodiversity while providing for human needs has burgeoned recently with the emergence of several frameworks, most notably that of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. These frameworks are currently being review by colleagues at the Stockholm Resilience Center. The WLE framework on ecosystem services is not meant to replace these existing frameworks, but rather is meant to identify our value proposition, and contribution to ESS&R work. The ESS&R Working Group has initially identified at least four ways that WLE work is distinct from that of other groups: 1) we focus on agricultural landscapes and how agricultural systems can be managed for the conservation and restoration of ecosystem service delivery; 2) we put people first by explicitly focusing on how the poor benefit from ecosystems; 3) we use a multiscalar approach with the basin as our maximum extent; 4) we apply a resilience lens.
The ESS&R framework (Figure 1) recognizes that people manage ecosystems, which in turn affects the flow of ecosystem services. Explicit recognition of ecosystems services permits targeted management of these services that are then harvested/consumed by people, and contribute to different degrees to various aspects of their wellbeing. Policy/governance looks at a variety of issues to guide (form incentives for) how people manage ecosystems for desired outcomes (food security, water quality, safety from hazards, health, equity etc.). These outcomes are a function of the state of ecosystems (various landscape qualities) that regulate the quantity and quality of the services generated. Applying a resilience lens to our work means that we recognize that these interactions happen at specific scales, but are influenced by external drivers, shocks and disturbances. When we study these interactions we particularly focus on the dynamic nature of coupled social-ecological systems, and the key roles of: 1) cross-scale interactions and 2) constant disturbance/change in shaping these dynamics.
The version above indicates the primary components and domains and some of the feedback loops. It will be subjected to further changes as the group continues its discussions. The dominant concept is that of the human-dominated landscape, within which CG intermediate development outcomes and system level outcomes must be delivered. Underpinning that is the truism – which bears repeating and incorporating into not only WLE but all CRPs – that ultimately people depend on ecosystems. Seeing those ecosystems through a resilience lens brings into focus the services themselves, the ways in which they influence, and are influenced by, human activities, and the need to consider trade-offs and synergies in modifying ecosystems so as to deliver overall development benefits to people.
The working group identified and continues to refine several principles that define our work:
1) Ecosystem services are considered within the portfolio of options
There are many potential solutions to the develop challenges we are faced. The ESS&R working group will work to ensure that ecosystem services are considered as one of those options – this includes the management of large natural areas when they impact ecosystem services at basin scales, the management of agricultural systems for common pool resources at landscape and intermediate scales, and combined intervention strategies such as “soft infrastructure” for meeting WLE outcomes.
2) People are fundamental
The WLE focus on ecosystem services is about improving the lives of people. We study and manage those ecosystems services that are essential maintaining, and improving the lives of our stakeholders, notably the millions of smallholder farmers and farming communities where we work.
3) Multifunctionality
The ESS&R working group explicitly recognized the multifunctionality of agricultural systems, landscapes and basins. Maximizing the efficiency of a single function often reduces system resilience. We do not maximize the efficiency of a single service at the expense of other critical services.
4) A resilience lens
We use a resilience lens. The ESS&R recognizes that socio-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole, and where feedback loops and thresholds can be important. A key ESS&R activity will be to develop the methodologies to identify and manage these thresholds at basin scales and lower.
5) Expect change.
The only constant in complex adaptive systems is change. Shocks to the system, whether climate, market or politically driven, can and will occur and need to be planned for.
Mode of Operation
The Ecosystem Service Working Group is open to all interested parties, although at least on representative from each Center involved in WLE is designated as the group focal point. Communication will primarily occur using teleconferencing tools (go to meeting, skype), and web based collaboration tools (Yammer, Google Docs, etc.). We will mirror the communication strategy of other WLE working groups and will coordinate our written communication and framework development through a WLE blog site/wiki. We encourage strong representation from the distinct SRP’s involved in WLE and expect particularly strong interaction with the Informatics SRP.
Entry Points with WLE SRP’s
Basins
The Basin SRP provides a key entry point for ESS&R work. Basins set the maximum extent of ESS&R work in which we understand system flows, thresholds and feedbacks. The basin scale sets the stage of ESS&R work. Basins include rainfed, and irrigated systems and opportunities for resource recovery and reuse; it demands advanced information systems for decision-making, scenario analysis, targeting interventions, and monitoring progress all of which are key to the adaptive management of basins. The ESS&R Working group proposes to work largely within prioritized WLE basins, but not at the basin scale per se. Rather, we view basins as the maximum extent in which scale hierarchies are identified, understood, and managed and where interactions between SRP’s become relevant. Key ESS&R activities with basins will include working with multistakeholder groups to identify focal ecosystem services and thresholds in WLE basins, recognizing the scales at which these services and thresholds operate, and proposing ecosystem services based interventions for ensuring the delivery. We propose to pilot this approach in three key territories: 1) Costa Rican biological corridors where on-going work provides a jump-start for ESS&R research, 2) the Volta Basin where a whole basin approach will be piloted through the Information Systems SRP in collaboration with CIAT, IMWI, Bioversity and the SRC; and 3) in the Mekong, capitalizing on rich CPFW, Conservation International, and Wildlife Conservation Society history of work in the region.
The basin scale requires managing resources and equity of allocation, and offers an opportunity to unite various ecosystems services, not just those directly tied to water. Different scales will make different trade-offs visible and offer opportunities for scale up. The basin scale recognizes hierarchies between scales - where higher order scales provide systems context and constraints, and lower order scales define mechanisms by which services are provided. A key research challenge for ESS&R and its partners will be to develop novel methodologies for managing scale hierarchies.
Each basin is at a different level of economic development. This offers opportunities to compare basins, discover what has worked and what hasn’t, and share good practices. Opportunity also to investigate links between the value of ESS&R and levels of economic development, and to ask how different scenarios for ecosystem change might affect economic trajectories. Are there basin-level thresholds, for example percentage of land use for food production in relation to water, that result in step changes to ESS&R? Need to reverse consideration of feedback loops and investigate how downstream changes affect upstream processes.
Information Systems
Managing ecosystem services and resilience is knowledge intensive. Scientists produce abundant information but fail to identify or prioritized key information that often does not reach decision makers in a form that is useable. Ecosystem scientists have the expertise and protocols to measure several ecosystem services, but need to work with information scientists to develop metrics of interest to decision makers. ESS&R will survey the available information, repackage it where necessary, and identify gaps. With our partners, we will provide training and capacity development in the use and application of such metrics among partner scientists. We will provide clear definitions of ESS&R, and clear, usable valuations, synthesized into clear metrics. Several of our partners have pioneered ecosystem service modelling efforts, most notably The Natural Capital Projects InVest model (Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Trade-offs) and Conservation International’s ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services). WLE offers these partners the rather unique opportunity to utilize and refine such models within the WLE context (people centered, poverty alleviation goals, agriculagricultural landscapes, basin scales, and resilience lens). With these partners and others, we will refine and provide simulation models that provide multi-stakeholder groups and decisions makers with a safe operating space for considering management alternatives, synergies, and trade-offs. Information systems do not exist in a void, but rather provide an opportunity by which ecosystem service based interventions can be considered in the Basins, Rainfed, and RRR SRPs.
The ESS&R envisions a close relationship with the Informatics SRP in developing a standardized Monitoring System for Agroecosystem Health by identifying key biodiversity and ecosystem service indicators. These indicators are not only essential establishing WLE baselines and monitoring progress, but also contribute to a global effort to establish Essential Biodiversity Variables (and ecosystem services) for the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services through collaborations with GEO BON, FAO, and Columbia University’s Earth Observatory. Our contribution to this effort focuses on indicators that are relevant to the WLE vision of productive agricultural systems in vibrant ecosystems.
Irrigation:
Irrigation offers a unique opportunity for ESS&R, because the basic strategy of the SRP does not need to change, it just needs to embrace ecosystem principles in order to reframe its perspective on sustainability. While the positive impact of irrigation on productivity is beyond dispute, the unintended consequences of irrigation have been used as classical case studies on resilience (or lack thereof), notably problems of salinization of the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia, and the impacts of irrigation in the Aral Sea Basin (Amu Darya and Sir Darya) on the receding Aral Sea. In contrast, integrated irrigation systems that consider system multifunctionality, including cultural services such as the tank systems of Sri Lanka are presented as a re-emerging example of ecosystem service and resilience based management of irrigated systems.